What a great shot, posted at the Cohort by So Cal Metro. And what good timing too, since while sitting in the bath tub last night I was just thinking about an important message I want to convey to all the owners of Curbside Classic cars, especially controversial or oft-derided cars, like this “Deadly Sin” gen2 Seville.

The message is: we love your car; in fact we love every old car out there on the streets (well, with the possible exception of Z-28 and GTO clones and such). Why all the emo?

I read every comment left at CC, and I regularly come across ones like this, usually left some time after the post has originally run, and the commenter has found it via a google search or thus. Like this one, left last night at the VW Passat W8 CC:

haha look at all you haters… I read this, I heard that… Have any of you actually owned one? I own an 03′ black Passat W8 4Motion, 6 spd with 100k+ miles and despite the minor TLC required, I have never ran into a single, major, problem.

It’s representative of what owners often express when they find our articles. And understandable, since historically, the W8 was an over-priced sales dud for VW, which can’t be denied. But that misses the more important point: If we didn’t love the cars we shoot and write up, why would we bother to spend the time and energy to do so?

It’s the love of seeing old cars still on the street, and the chance it gives us to re-hash history. It’s not the/your actual car we’re hating on (if that’s what we’re doing), it’s the decisions that made that car happen. And those are two very different things, although it seems it’s often hard for owners or lovers of cars to distinguish between. Human nature; and understandable.

But CC isn’t Car Domain or a fanboi forum; we’re here to dig up the whole story on every car, and how it came to be. But ten or fifty years on, that’s just what it is: old history. And the present reality of owning and caring for any car, regardless of its provenance, is a matter of the heart. You are what make CC possible; if it weren’t for your passion and dedication to keeping even the deadliest of sins running, we’d have nothing to shoot and wax eloquently about (or tear apart).

So keep loving those Deadly Sins and very other ugly, unreliable and otherwise failed car out there. And we’ll keep saluting you, even if it’s not in exactly with the words you’d most like to hear. But behind all the words is the love, and even jealousy. I’m lovin’ on that Seville just now…

81 Comments

I can appreciate any old car still in use the worse the reputation it had new all the better to find a still running example, not to say I’d want to own some of them but its nice to see somebody still does.

Any old car that’s original is important to the history of the automobile. And, as such, the continued existence of every old car, no matter how much a failure it was in the marketplace, is necessary. And the biggest sales failures are probably the most important to save, because they’re caught between the rock of being rare due to not selling, and the hard place of not being worth a lot of money despite being rare. Those are the ones that extra effort needs to be made to save.

Every vintage car is important and necessary . . . . . . . even broughams.

Well said! Even when I find one of my least favorite cars on the planet, I still get a little thrill that someone has loved it and cared for it well enough to make it one of the 1% (1/100%?) of the car world – the ones that in the face of all odds, still exists to be driven and loved by its owner.

Even the old beater that continues to soldier on despite time and the elements taking their toll inspires me with some respect, whether if is one of my most or my least favorite models.

Though I might not like theirs, and they might not like mine, we still share the same kinds of sufferings and joys that come from keeping the old iron alive. Whether it’s a Buick or a Bimmer, a Chevy or a Citroen, grease is still black and busted knuckles bleed red 😉

Knowing that the CC readership never fails to include at least one supporter for just about every make/model is a big part of what makes this site great.

Plus, from a contributor’s perspective – it allows me the rare luxury of knowing that I can post those strange or otherwise unloved models (and the personal stories that sometimes accompany them) without worrying about them turning into flamebait.

I live around frigging Panameras and X6 crapés. New cars are chock full o’ lifesavingness and petrolsavingness, but they are so disappointingly ugly. Across the board. The last pretty vehicles made by Mercedes, for example, are the first SLK and the W638 Vito. And coupe variants? The Audi A5 lost all the magic of the A4 and A6 when they decided to cokebottle. I am so underwhelmed by the current crop of motorvation, I rejoice when I see a Datsun 120Y. Give me an historic disaster over a current one any time.

I rejoice at the sight of B210s too, and even without drugs,although that can add to their profound appeal. And this happens quite often as there’s about six or more DD B210s here. Hang on to my gushing tribute; it’s coming soon.

You might want to take some drugs before you read it Kevin. I’ll give you advance warning. 🙂

Utterly horrible but perfectly serviceable. My old friend had one with the 1400 cc engine, which was tough as nails, forged crank and camshaft, too. He drove the living crap out if it for years until at like 160,000 miles it plain wore out. There was lots of Vancouver Island since there is little rust on cars there.

A rarely seen car like the B210 is indeed a find! But whoa there on that A5…easily one of the best looking bodystyles on the road right now. The A4s could all disappear, a few less sedans is a VERY good thing! But Audi is bringing back beefy muscular looking coupes. The A5 is a nice all around ride, the RS-5 is a chiseled macho beast that offers style and performance. We need more cars like it, just more affordable.

Yep, had a bit of the Latin temperament this morning. I have been so impressed with Audi of late, but I think they missed with the coupe. I just don’t think cokebottle fits with their ‘arc’ profiles. Would take an S6 wagon any day of the week, very horny wagon.

As for the Datto; I’d rather talk cars with the owner of that car than the owner of an X6. Cheers.

Well, we’d have to agree to disagree on the A5 and derivatives…but the S6 on the other hand is a total badass! When it comes to evil looking wagons with the performance to back it up you can count me in.

Good point! We may rip all over the poor 1982 Rodney Dangerfield No Respect Deluxe, but I think most of us would admit that it is great someone is keeping it going on the road (even if it appears the owner themselves doesn’t respect it!)

As a contributing writer, I wholeheartedly support Paul’s message. I also give a +1 to his photo because there is an exactly identical Seville owned by an elderly man who lives near me, in the same colors and in similar condition. It has V-8-6-4 engine badges, which tell me (1) that the car is a 1981 and (2) that the owner patiently dealt with addressing the engine’s electronic issues and did not abandon the car because of them. Clearly, he is a dedicated owner who does not care about the criticism widely heaped on his car. He also knows what he likes and has it, because his second car is an early 1980s Imperial – early 80s cars with bustle-backs and engine electronic system problems are for him, no matter what anyone else thinks about them. That kind of owner devotion is a great thing to see!

Yes, every old car has an important history. I have never felt it important to post: “I do not like that car”, when someone post an article on a car that doesn’t appeal to me. I am glad there are those who like cars I do not because it gives us a complete history to look back on, not just the cars we like. I can also appreciate and even like cars that were far from perfect; take for example the Seville in this article. I like those cars a lot but at the same time I am aware of their limitations, which there are many.
I have found over the years automobile enthusiasts car square-off over brands like they do over high school football teams. There is room in the garage for everyone. I can see the good in cars I do not like and the short comings of those I do like.
This past week I learned some things about AMC I did not know. I have never warmed up to their cars but I can appreciate things about them as I learn more about them from others. Keep posting and exposing me to cars I have overlooked.

I think that when we see any/all cars that were a part of our growing up, etc. it triggers a rush of emotions, some positive, some negative. Overall, the sightings have the power to
ignite a reaction, be it Wow! Yuck! or Meh! Ultimately, for some of us, it clarifies the inevitable transition of all things…that at some point in time, it will all be irrelevant! 🙂

When I give my two cents regarding a specific model, I don’t comment so much on the actual car presented. I tip my hat to all owners of all old warrior cars. Unless, of course, there is something unique, unusual or outstanding about the car in the article. Instead, I try to focus on that specific model’s place in history, and whatever personal experiences I’ve had with it.

I always try to use my knowledge and experience regarding a specific car in the context of when it was actually for sale and on the road. And most importantly, needed to be viable and profitable for it’s maker. It’s too easy, and not fully fair to judge a car from 20 or 30 years hindsight perspective.

I had subscriptions to all three car mags for years (C&D, R&T, and MT). So, I generally know how many cars road tested and what their general reception was at the time. I didn’t need to own a Chevette, to know it was a tin box.

To be honest all these cars are crap. They may ride well or accelerate nicely or look good but they won’t do all that sort of stuff in the one vehicle like a modern one will. There is no rational reason why most of these are not at the scrap yard.
We are not rational people.
Long live the Brougham, the Rambler, the bustle-back Seville.

That’s a beauty Otto. Last night a good friend and fellow gen 1 Seville lover sent me these YouTube links. The first one was made by the Cadillac Merchandising Department. The second one is more technical and does a wonderful job showing off how well the leaf spring rear suspension works.

We do a good job here of discussing the pros and cons of various cars. As Dave B pointed out, the debate is usually pretty civil. And besides, a machine’s faults are part of its personality, and part of the fun of owning it. I’ve owned some seriously crappy cars, and I remember all of them fondly. I loved my 1975 Datsun B-210 because it was my first car, but I don’t expect anyone to tell me with a straight face that it was a good car, or even a mediocre car. It was a POS, but it was my POS…

As a longtime admirer of the original sheer-look ’76 Sevilles, I was appalled at the bustleback ’80 version. I understand what the designers were trying to achieve; I just think they missed the mark by a mile.

But someone who keeps a second-gen Seville on the road with its original, glorious two-tone paint job and fake wire wheel hubcaps? That person has my full and complete admiration. Thank you for adding a splash of color and flair to our lives, and thank you for not putting yet another silver Toyota Highlander on the road.

I tend to think that it was shaken into schizophrenia with this one, Carmine. The Eldo looked cool and a proper luxury car but this thing, ahhh-ooo-ga! What were they smoking? Who signed off onto an obvious flop-ola like this? GM made boat loads of money on the first Seville. They could have engineered something really cool, like an IRS B-body with a well tuned suspension, good brakes and steering for what they spent on this. That was the vision GM needed in that era, it it took way to long to come.

The 2nd gen Seville was one of the last cars signed off by Bill Mitchell before he retired in 1977, I guess to some, this was sort of like Earls 58’s. I like the bustleback’s look, so I don’t mind that part, I like its looks, some people don’t, it’s polarizing and it makes a statement. Some people hate 928’s, another fairly controversial design from a few years before, I like 928’s as well.

They probably didn’t spend all the much on the 2nd gen Seville since there was so much of the car now shared with the E-body.

Chassis wise, I wouldn’t go with a B-body, because BOF would kinda be a step back from the 1st gen, but imagine if GM and Cadillac would have ponied up the bucks for a dedicated RWD uni-body platform for the Seville with an IRS set up. Kinda similar to what they eventually did for the CTS. Some of the basic bones of the E/K platform were very good for 1979-1980, 4 wheel independent suspension and 4 wheel disc brakes all around.

I’ve always found the bustle-back Sevilles were quite fetching. Indeed, the similarly styled ’81-’83 Imperial Coupe is on my bucket list to own one day.

Speaking of “smelly” vehicles, the ’81-’83 Imperials had their share of problems. I obtained a copy of the factory diagnostics guide for it. With a notation from one of the EFI engineers stating, “POS!”, in the margin. The guy that I got it from was a factory rep that went to the dealers back in the day to save Imperial sales by fixing the EFIs. Eventually, that led to retrofit kits with carburetors and the now-infamous “asterisk” odometers.

Still love ’em though. Make my mine a carb model though!

jpcavanaugh

Posted January 29, 2014 at 7:52 AM

CraigNC who used to comment and post here (and may someday again) has one of these Imperials with a functioning EFI system. He is an engineer and was willing to learn his way through the system. With internet-available parts and knowledge, he says that his performs quite well. It is my understanding that, just like the Bendix Electrojectr fiasco of 1958, the Imp used a good system that was just too far ahead of the curve given the available technology.

We have done a couple of CCs on these. I recall learning that every one of them cost Chrysler an average of $10K in warranty expense, much of that related to carb conversions that were VERY much more involved than you would think at first.

Mark, how far are you from Oregon? I have a bit of a thing for the bustleback Imps too. AND the related Mirada and Cordoba LS. This has been on craigslist for some time and Im fighting the urge to snag it and give it the wacky ’70s high raker, sidepipes, fat rear tires skinny fronts and Keystone mags allaround kinda look. Oh and beef the hell out of the drivetrain and have a ridiculous blower/hoodscoop.

I seldom comment and have never made a submission, but I read the posts on this site religiously. When I finally stepped into the age of the internet and embraced the web, I spent months browsing through various car sites and the charm, invariably wore off each of them. Thinking back, I realize that most often it was because reader comments (when and where they were allowed), often devolved into nasty, petty sniping at whatever had been posted and the commentators who embraced the given topic/car.

The world is a fractious, contentious place and everyone, ESPECIALLY in America,
is welcome to their given opinions on any given topic…. Differences and variety are the spice of life, after all. Unfortunately, lots of people mistakenly (or deliberately!) confuse dissent or disagreement with pissing all over someone-else’s conflicting viewpoint and most unfortunately, their pleasure.

This is one of the few places on the enter-webs where a car lover can go take advantage of a true treasure-trove….A basically infinite variety of cars and a dedicated group of car lovers that can not only share Subjective information, but Objective information as well.

I’m pretty sure that I’m like most of the readers here and often see some car or truck (or tractor/bus/snowmobile!) and think “Ugh!”, but then I read the text of the subject or the comments posted by someone below and think; “Hmmm, didn’t think of/know that”. I almost always take away a new perspective.

Everyone’s idea of beauty is slightly different and the qualities that endear or appeal to someone (or many someones), may seem repugnant to someone else…Does that give anyone the authority to openly deride it? Is it polite to do so? Would you openly call someone’s wife or child ugly or stupid, or mock or deride their most prized possessions?

I love this site and truly enjoy the subjects and almost always their resulting comments as well.

To everyone who contributes regularly in both submissions as well as comments, Thank you all!

Haha! just saw this, and that’s awesome! I like both ends of the spectrum: I agree the ’69 Hemi Chargers are easy to love, but the ’86 Shelby Chargers are for those with an eye for something off the wall, different, ground breaking, or counterintuitive to conventional thinking.

Brilliant buddy. As old age creeps up on my, cars have become a really annoying and expensive way to get around and I firmly believe that internal combustion engines deserve to be in museums, not cars. I will attempt to spend as little as possible on my 14 year old Acura, which I have now had three years and had ZERO problems. If it blows the tranny tomorrow I am still money ahead, $3000 a year to drive something decent. You can’t have a Civic in Canada for that.

As someone with a vocal dislike of Cadillac and broughams in general as well as a near psychotic hatred of sedans….I have to say the bustleback Seville is at least interesting. Its got its faults, performance first but from a visual standpoint it does have character. True CC material.

Strange as it may seem, I love the first gen Seville, never cared for the second gen, but got mine for next to nothing. In all honesty it is a far superior automobile then the first gen in every aspect except looks. On Halloween I would dress a mannequin up as Cruella DeVille and sit it in the ’83 Seville in front of the house. The kids loved it

My own first car was a 1976 Datsun B-210 hatchback..Metallic, chocolate brown, with an automatic, no-less! It was awful, but it was my first car and I loved it terribly.

Whenever I read the title “Cockroach Of The Road” on this site, I think of that car! Go back and look at the picture of the white one in profile posted by Don Andreina and imagine it in brown…Cockroach, indeed!

Mine was orange, also with an automatic. One thing that sticks out in my memory is the lack of headroom. I am about 5 feet 10 inches, (neither short nor particularly tall) but I had to recline the seat, or else my head would touch the headliner. Even with the seat reclined, my head would sometimes hit the ceiling when I hit a bump. You didn’t see a lot of tall people driving B-210s!

I remember riding in one and nearly sliding off the road on a not-that-tight corner at 25mph. I suppose the tires on the car may have been older than I was at the time (14 or so), who knows, but it was quite unimpressive.

As a proud contributor, there are many moments when my conclusion is that cars are a lot like people – many good ones, few bad ones, and all have their own delightful quirks. It’s what helps make the world go ’round.

However, this Cadillac is a deadly sin of another sort. The first Cadillac I ever drove was an ’83 Seville. It was the most comfortable car I had ever driven at that point in my life. Since then I have been lusting after another Cadillac. I envy those who find good ones of whatever stripe. I would likely be overly prideful owning one, and I may become a glutton and want more, but my comfort induced laziness may interfere. So this Cadillac is like a whole handful of deadly sins, isn’t it?

IMO I find the 1976 Aston Martin Lagonda looks more like what the second generation Seville should have looked like. Without the exaggerated length of course. But it shares a similar look and proportions to the Gen 1 Seville. Enough so, that it could easily be seen as an 80s update. The Gen 2 Seville that GM released harkens to the 1930s past, rather than the future. I didn’t think that was the best direction at the time. Most cars try to look more modern over their previous version, to appear new and fresh.

I wished at the time the Gen 2 Seville would go with a more chiseled, futuristic version of the Gen 1 Seville styling. While retaining a family resemblance. The Lagonda is the closest car to how I would have liked to have seen this handled. A chiseled version of the sheer look from 1975. The handling of the roofline, trunk and location of the wheels with the fenders, are very similar to the Gen 1 Seville. It would have maintained a modern continuation of the first Seville’s bold look. And it would have been very distinctive compared to the Olds Cutlass and Buick Century clone Sevilles that appeared in 1980.

Just my opinion. But to me, the Lagonda looks like what the Gen 1 should have evolved towards… going crisply towards the future… not the 1930s. With a crisper, elegant evolution of the Gen 1 Seville style. The evolution of the Gen 1 Seville could have… and should have been more dynamic IMO. With a normal trunk.

The Lagonda looks very modern and elegant. Even today. A 1980 Seville styled like this would have sold very well IMO. Especially avoiding that bustleback trunk that just divided people’s tastes from the beginning. I blame the bustleback specifically for killing ’80 Seville, ’81 Imperial, and ’82 Continental sales. I know Chrysler and Lincoln were following Cadillac’s lead. But it was such a controversial, divisive styling element to begin with. Like the 70s, lots of bungling was still going on into the 1980s.

Checkout the stance and proportions below. The Lagonda looks very much like a futuristic Gen 1 Seville. And it’s equally as elegant, with a family resemblance. IMO GM should have went in this direction.

Rather than the controversial bustleback, I think they could have remained with a normal trunk. But given the existing Gen 1 sheer look some chiseling and drama with bolder lines to make it distinctive from the other GM cars using it.

This is a super quick Photoshop, using the Lagonda as a reference point. But the trunk follows the Gen 1 family resemblance. As does the roofline. And the high character line. Both the Seville and Lagonda have greenhouses that look sweep back. That gives a look that is very elegant. It also gives the impression the car is moving at high speed, even when parked. But was fully lost in the Gen 2 Seville.

But it’s that more solid, chiseled look, that makes it seem more modern. The bustleback was too much love or hate. It divides opinions very strongly. That is such a risky way to go. AMC made that mistake with the Pacer.

Obviously, more uniqueness from the Lagonda would be necessary. But you can definitely see the Gen 1 Seville evolution.

What you chopped up kinda looks like an early 92 Seville mock up from 1987. Early drawings for the 1986 Seville were also longer with a pointy front end like the Lagonda. The 92 Seville does share some of the Lagonda style profile.

The Lagonda looks ok in profile, but really awkward from other angles.

You’re right about the Lagonda’s awkwardness, but it still makes a great profile. Never seen that 92 before. Makes me think of more recent Cadillac concepts, particularly the 16. Why the frack don’t they do a super hardcore limited release?

CARMINE

Posted January 28, 2014 at 11:20 PM

I always thought the Lagonda looked like an 82 Firebird sedan, I know the Lagonda predates the Firebird, but still….

You haven’t seen the large sedan flagship car they caught testing?

Its not the Sixteen, but spy photographers have caught the new large Cadillac sedan in cold weather testing.

I felt the later Sevilles looked closer to what the Gen 1 Seville could have evolved towards starting in 1980.

Like there is a big 10 year+ missing link, starting in 1980.

I agree, the Lagonda is too long for starters. But it was the profile and general look, that to me, had great potential. The proportions especially within the wheelbase, looked very similar to the Gen 1 Seville. And Cadillac should have evolved and explored a more sophisticated, chiseled look for Gen 2 IMO. Thus separating it from the other GM cars, then adopting the sheer look.

The Gen 1 Seville was so original style-wise. Why not evolve it to the next level? And let the other lesser GM cars follow up with the older, but still desirable look.

It’s surprising when a car maker abandons a winning style. Though Ford certainly did it with the Mustang at times. And Chrysler, with the Charger in 1971.

The 79 Seville was a great car to drive. It turned and stopped on a dime, it was QUIET and it rode well (nicer over expansion joints on the freeway than a neighbor’s 76 Seville). It was also a stylish and handsome car in that color combo. The diesel had a fair amount of gumption, especially compared to MBZ 300D’s. The trunk space was lacking, the tranny couldn’t handle the engine’s torque and the injectors and fuel pump were problematic. But it was a great car – my mother took it from my father with about 70k miles and loved it. It was a great car for a woman

The 81 Eldo was also quite handsome. Both the 79 Seville and the 81 Eldorado drew admiring glances when we pulled up somewhere and people got the hell out of the way when that long black hood barreled up behind them on the freeway. The Touring Suspension and fatter tires that were part of the package gave the car an appreciably firmer ride and better handling. Dad sold it with 72k on it and the V-864 was still running fine.

The 84 Bustleback was a dog. It didn’t stop worth a damn (neither did the Eldo come to think of it), it couldn’t accelerate to save its life and the engine had to be rebuilt at 21k. Dad and I both went to the dealership when he was looking at buying the 84 – the lack of pep vs the 81 Eldo caused us both to look at each other and shake our heads. But he wanted another Cadillac, so that’s what wound up in the garage

Cars are, very much in my opinion, an expression of the culture and society in which we live. When I was a kid, I saw cars as cool and that was about it, but now I see them as the reflection of the social environment. Look at 50’s cars, they are a direct link to that time of total optimism (for white males, anyway) to their collective future. The pinnacle of this was the ’59 fin Caddy, which was penned in 1957. In ’58 there was recession, so the 1960 was toned down and the 1961 models much more practical. It was kind of like a collective trance had worn off or something. I wasn’t alive at the time but I would suspect there is a lot of BS about the era and certainly a lot of stuff wasn’t nearly as rosy as it is portrayed.

I am still wondering what drug that designer of that Seville was on. What an awful contrivance! What company would do something so obviously stupid to a once great brand, especially since a lot of them were sold with GM’s horrid diesel, whose rep has killed diesel cars in America to this day? GM always made good cars but it also made some real duds like this thing, a pure example of showy styling for nothing.

Very well said Paul. I enjoy this site for many reasons, but the two that stand out are the very thorough, knowledgeable and insightful articles, and the overall friendly and positive tenor of the discussions.

I think we all would agree that as auto enthusiasts, we see cars as works of art as well as transportation, and as with all art, based on personal taste, some you enjoy and some you don’t…..yet they’re all works of art……….

I can’t wrap my head around this phenomenon. It’s a car, not your high school girlfriend! No need to defend it’s honor or lie to yourself about it’s flaws. If something rates being featured here at all then shouldn’t it’s worth be evident?

Crappy vehicles that are survivors (think Chevy Uplanders in the 2020s) are good because they remind us of history that should not be repeated. My main qualm with Uplanders is their lack of reliability, if a vehicle is quite reliable, but feels cheap and looks ugly I am much more forgiving of it. Also help if parts are not too expensive.

Well written Paul. I enjoy reading this site and seeing the photos of even cars I have virtually little interest in. It is always nice to see an old car that has been preserved and well cared for, even if I don’t actually like the car. I also enjoy reading and discussing the cars we talk about, even when we don’t all agree. I think a lot of the emotion people have when speaking of their particular car or type of car comes from car enthusiasts unnatural love for their inanimate objects. It’s only natural to want to defend the ones you love. Part of it comes from the differing opinions, tastes and of course experience with that particular car. I know my old CC is a car that has been around me my whole life, a car that is legendary in our family, a car that I have enjoy countless hours within and caring for, and one that I plan to keep likely for the rest of my life. Long live the CC, whether it be a cushy brougham, a muscle car, a 50’s classic, a Euro or even a Japanese econobox.

By coincidence, just yesterday I reread a Collectible Automobile feature article about this generation Seville. For some, this may be hard to believe but, according to the writer, the new bustleback Seville received a two-minute standing ovation from an audience of Cadillac dealers attending its pre-intro reveal in late 1979. Go figure.

You know it may not have been completely successful in its style either, but at least they were trying. I have so much more respect for companies that try hard and fail than I do for companies that are so scared of failure they never come up with anything interesting or unique. Even though I never really cared for this Seville I still like it better than any Corolla ever made.

I enjoy coming here and reading the history of mundane, average, and unusual cars. I learn something new every week, if not every day.

The thing is, you often push average cars into punching-bag status simply because you don’t like them. It doesn’t matter if they were huge sales successes or had other redeeming qualities. I have often found myself defending or attacking cars that I have no vested interest in whatsoever, just because some articles have been so blatently one-sided. Only rarely do you show a fair and balanced opinion on domestic cars, and I have found this aspect of the site to be disappointing. Thankfully you do keep the comment sections open and good discussion is possible with a lot of input from very knowledgable people. If not for that, I’m afraid I wouldn’t find this site very tolerable.

But hey, I’m not hating on you personally. I’m just exploring the reasons why so many of your articles bring out such strong emotions in people. Strong being a relative term of course, this being one of the most civil places to discuss cars on the internet.

Personally, I would rather read a good, well-reasoned and well-written rant on a car than yet another boring recitation of facts and figures about it, or even worse, some fawning fanboi treatment that seems to be way to common out there in internet-land. I really do read CC for the articles, not just to look at the pictures. 🙂

I can agree with that to some extent. But there is also a difference between an informative, well-written rant and a rant that uses one or two features of a car to paint it as a complete failure. Both types of rants are on display here. As are fanboi type pieces. But like I said, the comment section keeps things tolerable.

My uncle had a 1980 Seville diesel, 2-tone silver and black. He loved that car and had it for well over 100,000 miles. His wife drove a 1980 Buick Estate Wagon, blue with blue interior, also a diesel. I asked her about that car on many occasions and she always told me she loved it! I wonder how many families owned 2 GM diesels at the same time? And loved them both?

I like the second generation Seville better too, perhaps it’s because we had a 79 back in the day. I thought the first generation Seville would be a popular car by now bring better prices, but I see most second generation Seville bringing more. Our 79 had too much of a small car ride. Both are handsome cars.

Shame about the then GM corporate policy of not passing the gas guzzler tax on to the customer. The 368 with fuel injection would have been just fine up to the 1985 model year on these cars paired with the 4 speed overdrive transmission. Heck it may not even needed it if they took the time and tuned the engine properly. Think about how much better Cadillac’s reputation would have been back then and now if the 8-6-4 and HT 4100 never happened and if the Diesel was made to 1981 specs with the water separator and beefier head bolts. Bean counters, poor decisions and the two stupid oil crisis situations really messed things up and are still being felt today.